HARTFORD The state Supreme Court will not weigh in on a dispute over whether the Connecticut Law Tribune should have been barred from publishing a story about a child protection case.
The state's highest court was asked for its opinion after Judge Stephen Frazzini on Nov. 24 granted a motion filed in New Britain Superior Court by the mother of the three children involved in the child protection case that sought to stop the Law Tribune from running the story. Frazzini later lifted the ruling in December, saying the order no longer made sense because information about the case had already been published by other media outlets. Thursday, the court dismissed an appeal of the ruling, saying the case has become moot.
Daniel J. Klau, the lawyer representing the Law Tribune, objected to the mother's motion, saying a prior restraint on the publication was a violation of the First Amendment. The information for the story, he said, was lawfully obtained by the Law Tribune. Klau appealed the ruling, asking the state's appellate court to stay the lower court's injunction. The state Supreme Court then transferred the appeal to itself.
Free-speech advocates slammed Frazzini's initial ruling as unconstitutional and said they were not surprised when he reversed it. They still wanted the issue, however, to go before the state Supreme Court so it could clarify the state and federal rules on prior restraint. Those who argue that privacy issues in child protection cases trump First Amendment rights, however, praised Frazzini's initial ruling.
Klau said Thursday that while he was disappointed with the Supreme Court's decision not to hear his appeal, he said it was "important to recognize why" the court reached its decision.
"The trial court vacated its own injunction after the Law Tribune and over 100 amici [including legal experts, individuals and organizations] filed appellate briefs that explained why the trial court's prior restraint order was blatantly unconstitutional," Klau said. The Law Tribune's appeal was supported by a friend-of-the-court brief filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Connecticut, two open-government organizations, three media organizations and more than a dozen media outlets, including the Hartford Courant.
"Moreover, the Supreme Court acknowledged in its decision that the First Amendment issue presented was one of 'significant public importance,' and it described the trial court's original decision as 'devoid of precedential value.'"
See the rest here:
Justices Dismiss Law Tribune's Appeal Of Ruling That Barred News Story